north jersey regional transportation model- enhanced

1

North Jersey Regional Transportation Model- EnhancedOverview for Experienced ModelersMay 19, 2008

InstructorsWade White, AICP David Schellinger, P.E.

2

Agenda

Design ConsiderationsComparisons with Earlier Versions of the ModelDiagnostics & ReportsData RequirementsUser InterfaceValidation ResultsPossible Future Enhancements

3

NJRTM-E Design Considerations

Create Single Unified Model for Northern NJ– Suitable for Regional Planning and Project Planning– Utilizing “best features” of existing regional models

Retain Key features required by Agencies– NJ Transit’s Network and Mode Choice Model– NJTPA’s Iterative Model Structure

4

NJTRM-E “FLOWCHART”

5


Operating Platform– Cube Base– Cube Voyager / Cube Cluster– Retain User-written programs

Support Applications for Alternatives Analysis– SUMMIT/ FTA New Starts– Air Quality Tools– Post Processing Tools

Peer Review/FindingsSubregional Models

6


Network & Model Complexity Issues – User Support Requirement

Execution Control– Full Model & Stepwise Execution– Execution Control by Diagnostic Conditions

• Software & User Defined• Warning / Fatal Controls

Model Diagnostics– Routine Diagnostics– In-line Statistical Summary Reports

Zone Independent Model Structure

7

Comparing the NJRTM-E with Previous Versions of the Model

Model Features and CapabilitiesModel Application Environment

8

Comparing the NJRTM-E with Previous Versions

Expanded Model Region

9

New Model Features & Capabilities

Detailed Representation of Highway Network– Enhanced Representation of Capacity & Speed

• Based on HCM 2000 Procedures• Link Capacity a function of Traffic Control Devices• Approach Capacity a function of turning lanes

– Detailed Coding of Limited Access Roadways• Bifucated coding / Detailed Ramp coding

– Geocoded Network• Shaped Network / Identification Attributes

– Highway Network includes Special Purpose Transit Facilities• Exclusive Busways• Link-Specific Scalable factors penalties for “shared-use” roadways

10


Trip Generation Enhancements– Generation now a function Life Cycle and

Number of Workers in addition to Household Size and Income

– Additional University-Based Trip Purpose– Airport Trip Purpose (Newark International) – Non-Motorized Trip Estimation– Adoption of NJ Statewide Model Truck Trip

Estimation Procedures

11


Incorporation of NJ Transit Mode Choice Model– Nested Logit Structure

• 6 Line-haul Modes / 2 access modes• Geographic Market Segmentation

– Area / Density Related• Mode Choice by Purpose segmented into Peak and Off-Peak

12


Highway Assignment Enhancements– HCM 2000 Volume-Delay Functions– Simplified Queuing Procedures– Advanced Toll Diversion Modeling

• Embedded Route Choice Submodel by Purpose & Vehicle Occupancy

• Direction-Specific Toll Modeling

13

NJRTM-E Trip Purposes

Trips are Classified Based on Whether they are Oriented Toward Home or Work:– Home-Based Work Direct (from home to work)– Home-Based Work Strategic (e.g., drop off kids, pick up coffee

on the way)– Home-Based Shopping– Home-Based Other (e.g., leisure, visit family)– Home-Based University– Work-Based Other (e.g., to lunch, shopping) – Non-Home Non-Work (all the rest - e.g., from a store to school)– Trucks

14

NJRTM-E Trip Generation

Productions: Cross-Classification Technique– Work Trips (Income x Life Cycle x Workers /HH)– Nonwork Trips (Income x Life Cycle x Persons /HH)

Attractions: Linear Equations– Households– Employment by Type– Area Type– Density

15


Cross-classification– Household Lifecycle Groups (3)

• With Retirees (at least 1)• With Children • Without Retirees or Children

– Household Income Groups (5)• 0-15K• 15-35K• 35-75K• 75-150K• 150k+

– Workers Per Household (4)• 0 Worker• 1 Worker• 2 Workers• 3+Workers

– Persons Per Household (6)• 1 to 6+ Persons

An example of NJRTM-E trip rates

16


External Trips abstracted as part of the Buffer RegionTruck Trip Estimation– Employment by Type & Households– Major Truck Generators– Intermodal Facilities

Post Generation Non-Motorized Trip Estimation– Autos / Person– Population & Employment Density– Network Density (Street Layer)– Network Restrictiveness (Highway Network)

• Limited Access Roadways• Multilane / High Speed Arterials

17

NJRTM-E Distribution

Gravity Model Structure– Stratified By Income – Composite Impedance Term

• Includes Highway / Transit times and costs– Includes K-Factors

• Use was Minimized• Primarily for NYC Destinations

– Calibration Against Household Survey and NJT Survey-based Trip Tables

18

NJRTM-E Mode Choice“Two-Region” Approach for Mode Choice– Trips Originating in “NJT Region” estimated via the NJT Mode

Choice Model– Trips Originating in the NYMTC Region estimated via shares

obtained from NYMTC BPM

19

NJRTM-E Mode Choice

NJT Region - Nested Logit Model– Auto (SOV, HOV2, HOV3, HOV4+)– Transit (12 access/Line-Haul Combinations)

• 6 Line-Haul (Bus, Rail, PATH, LRT, Ferry, Long-Haul Ferry)

• 2 Access Modes (Walk & Auto)– Each Purpose Partitioned into Peak & Off Peak

with separate mode choice applications

20

NJRTM-E Mode Choice

NYMTC Region – Share Calculation– Derived from the NYMTC BPM – Generalized Estimation

• Auto (SOV, HOV2, HOV3+)• Transit

– Processed via Input Support Application• Optional Process

21

NJRTM-E Assignment

Highway Assignment– Four Periods (AM/PM Peak Periods, Midday, Night)– Route Choice Assigns Nine Vehicle Type/Path

Conditions:• SOV, HOV, Truck• NonToll, Cash Toll, ETC Toll• Sensitive to Directional Toll biases

– Assignment Options:• Standard BPR• 2000 HCM & Simple Queuing• Akcelik Method• Detailed HCM Method

22

NJRTM-E Assignment

Universal Select-Link Analysis OptionToll Diversion Sensitive to Payment MethodCongestion Pricing Analysis

23

Model Application Environment

“Flow Chart Style” Cube ApplicationsScenarios Defined as Combinations of Socioeconomic Data and Network Conditions– Socioeconomic Data (example – “2020 Trend”)– Network (example “2010 No-build”)

Limited Use of Scenario “Keys”Application Types– Main Application – NJRTME – Support Applications

• Input Support • Output Support

NJRTME

Input Support Applications

Output Support Applications

24

Input Support Applications

Purpose – Preparation of Input DataUse is optional, conditioned on analysis needApplication Tasks:– Process Trips & Create Shares for NYMTC BPM Region– Calculate Initial Transit Composite Impedance – Calculate Zonal Level Walk Access Coverage

25

Output Support ApplicationsPurposes:

– Post Processor Preparation

• PPSUITE • SUMMIT

– Custom Analysis Tasks

• Subregional Extraction• Fixed Distribution Analysis

– Daily Network Traffic / Summary Statistics

Use is optional, conditioned on analysis needApplication Tasks:

– PPSUITE Network Merge - Network Preparation for PPSUITE– Subarea Processing – Extract Subarea Networks and Trip Tables– Daily Network Statistics – Summarize Daily Network Statistics– SUMMIT Analysis – Mode Choice Execution For Use with SUMMIT– Fixed Distribution Analysis – Process Model with Fixed Trips

26

Execution Control and Diagnostics Execution Control– Full Model– Stepwise Execution

• Primarily for Debugging Purposes

– Execution Control by Diagnostic Conditions • Software & User Defined• Warning / Fatal Controls

Model Diagnostics– Routine Diagnostics– Cumulative Model Summary

Component Summary Reports– Selected Components

27

Diagnostics & Reporting Purpose– User Support – Assist with Complex Coding– Provide Flexibility for Execution

Diagnostic Message Types:– User Defined

• Information • Warning Messages• Fatal Messages• Primarily Data Preparation / Processing• Expandable Process

– Software Generated • Information / Warning Messages• Fatal Messages

28

User Defined Messages – Network Examples Information– Link has User-Defined Speed

Warning– Signalized Traffic Control Device Coded, but Number of Signals = 0, Set to 1

Fatal– Undefined Facility Type for Link

29

Software Generated Messages – Examples

Information– Number of zones processed or records processed

Warning– Turn Penalty inconsistent with network coding

Fatal– Missing File

30

Diagnostic Reports

Report Types– Routine Diagnostics

– Cumulative Model Summary

31

Data Driving the NJRTM-E

Socioeconomic– Households by Lifestyle, Income and Persons– Employment by Type– Truck Trip Generators– Etc.

Network– Facility Type– Lanes– Transit Services– Etc.

Behavioral– Parameters, rates, coefficients, etc.

32

NJRTM-E Data Requirements

Socioeconomic Data– Population– Households– Income– Life Cycle Stratifications– Autos Per Person– Employment (10 Classifications)– Parking Costs – Zone Area– University Enrollment– Truck Terminals / Warehouses

33


Highway Network– Physical Data

• Length• Lanes / Lane Widths / Shoulder Conditions• Terrain Type

– Operational Data• Facility Type • Traffic Control Devices• G/C ratios & Progression• Turning Restrictions

– Cost Data• Tolls & Associated Factors

– Identification / Reference Data• Zone• Route / Name

34

Transit Network– Route Data– Link / Node Data– Access Data

• Non Transit Links• Walk & Transfer Links

– Park / Ride Data• Catchment Areas

– Fare Data– Walk Access Coverage

Editing Procedures Maintained in the NJT Formats– Separate “card files” for each transit network element– Custom procedures developed to retain comment records


35

NJRTM-E – Rail Mode Access Coding Procedures

22054

Transfer Access Link21054

8124Highway Node

886

887

888

Etc.

PNR Node

772

774773 775

Etc …

Drive Access Links – generated by the model

20054

Princeton Junction Rail Station

Walk‐Access Catchment Node

Zone Access Link

Walk Access Link

Drive‐Access Catchment Node

NJRTM-E Rail Station Access Coding at Princeton Junction

36

Recommended Procedures– Node Allocation

• Existing Highway Network • Transit Network• Long Range Planning Analysis (Projects for TIP / LRP)• Unallocated (Agency / Consultant Use)• Facilitates Transferable Networks

– Project Database• TIP projects stored as “transactions”• Implemented via CUBE Log Feature• Minimizes Coding Errors and Provides Audit Control

– Annual Coordination • Network / Service Revisions


37

The User InterfaceWorkspace

Scenario Manager

Application Manager

Data Pane

38

The User Interface

39

The User Interface

Fill in the Description of the

Alternative

40

The User Interface

Fill in the Analyst’s Name

41

The User Interface

Enter the directory name that contains the network data

42

The User Interface

Enter the directory name that contains

the zonal data

43

The User Interface

Check if running fixed distribution

44

The User Interface

Check if running fixed transit for

distribution

45

The User Interface

Permits Stepwise Execution, Primarily

for Debugging

46

The User Interface

Check to create path file -selected

link mapping

47

The User Interface

Zone number for highway path

reporting

48

The User Interface

Zone number for highway path

reporting

49

The User Interface

Zone number for transit path reporting

50

The User Interface

Zone number for transit path reporting

51

The User Interface

Total number of zones in the model

52

The User Interface

Value of time used to convert toll cost

to time

53

The User Interface

Scaling Factor used for sensitivity

analysis

54

The User Interface

Check to stop model if run has

certain errors

55

The User Interface

Check to stop model run if transit access errors exist

56

The User Interface

Select OK to save settings

57

The User Interface

Select CANCEL to discard changes

58

The User Interface

Select NEXT/BACK to go to next page

of parameters

59

The User Interface

Select RUN to start the model

60

Break !

61

NJRTM-E Validation Results

Comparisons at Regional, subregional, roadway and transit systemComparisons of Model Inputs with Other Known Data SourcesComparisons of Model Outputs with Other Known Data SourcesSensitivity Tests

62

Persons/Household & Workers/Household SubmodelsEstimation Comparison

EST OBS EST/OBS EST OBS EST/OBSBERGEN 2.69 2.69 1.00 1.31 1.29 1.02ESSEX 2.76 2.78 0.99 1.22 1.14 1.07HUDSON 2.60 2.66 0.98 1.20 1.14 1.06HUNTERDON 2.82 2.74 1.03 1.45 1.44 1.01MERCER 2.74 2.71 1.01 1.28 1.26 1.02MIDDLESEX 2.81 2.80 1.00 1.32 1.34 0.98MONMOUTH 2.76 2.76 1.00 1.33 1.30 1.02MORRIS 2.81 2.77 1.02 1.42 1.41 1.01OCEAN 2.54 2.55 0.99 1.09 1.05 1.04PASSAIC 2.98 3.00 0.99 1.27 1.27 1.00SOMERSET 2.75 2.74 1.00 1.41 1.38 1.02SUSSEX 2.84 2.86 0.99 1.38 1.44 0.96UNION 2.81 2.83 0.99 1.27 1.27 1.00WARREN 2.65 2.66 1.00 1.27 1.31 0.97TOTAL 2.74 2.75 1.00 1.28 1.26 1.02Note: Observation is summarized from Census.

COUNTY Persons/Household Workers/Household

63

Comparison of Trip Productions by Income Group

INCOME HBWD HBWS HBSH HBO HBU WBO NHNW TOTAL0-$14,999 115,534 52,775 188,107 473,496 42,629 29,368 170,336 1,072,244$15,000-$34,999 470,164 118,835 326,900 1,122,280 41,488 125,158 366,891 2,571,717$35,000-$74,999 1,282,778 455,821 699,505 2,526,212 95,534 630,364 818,217 6,508,430$75,000-$149,999 1,407,772 488,522 591,415 2,729,794 111,974 756,692 804,401 6,890,571>=$150,000 470,103 161,057 205,881 1,079,364 26,087 275,813 318,917 2,537,222Total 3,746,351 1,277,010 2,011,808 7,931,146 317,712 1,817,395 2,478,762 19,580,184

INCOME HBWD HBWS HBSH HBO HBU WBO NHNW TOTAL0-$14,999 116,865 51,860 188,235 482,193 40,261 28,062 172,769 1,080,246$15,000-$34,999 476,824 118,820 326,973 1,137,007 40,675 124,964 372,829 2,598,091$35,000-$74,999 1,281,997 453,993 698,596 2,518,653 91,761 629,676 828,595 6,503,270$75,000-$149,999 1,390,464 483,622 589,060 2,691,024 106,830 756,341 812,597 6,829,937>=$150,000 460,322 158,868 201,591 1,052,860 23,579 275,575 319,942 2,492,737Total 3,726,472 1,267,163 2,004,455 7,881,737 303,105 1,814,617 2,506,732 19,504,281

INCOME HBWD HBWS HBSH HBO HBU WBO NHNW TOTAL0-$14,999 98.9% 101.8% 99.9% 98.2% 105.9% 104.7% 98.6% 99.3%$15,000-$34,999 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 98.7% 102.0% 100.2% 98.4% 99.0%$35,000-$74,999 100.1% 100.4% 100.1% 100.3% 104.1% 100.1% 98.7% 100.1%$75,000-$149,999 101.2% 101.0% 100.4% 101.4% 104.8% 100.0% 99.0% 100.9%>=$150,000 102.1% 101.4% 102.1% 102.5% 110.6% 100.1% 99.7% 101.8%Total 100.5% 100.8% 100.4% 100.6% 104.8% 100.2% 98.9% 100.4%

Ratio of Trip Productions by Income Group (Model v.s Household Survey)

Trip Productions from Model by Income Group

Trip Productions from Household Survey by Income Group

64

Trip Production Summary by Purpose and Mode

TotalNon-

Motorized%Non-

Motorized TotalNon-

Motorized%Non-

Motorized TotalNon-

Motorized%Non-

MotorizedHBWD 3,746,351 150,949 4.0% HBWD 3,726,472 149,547 4.0% HBWD 1.01 1.01 1.00HBWS 1,277,011 39,667 3.1% HBWS 1,267,163 38,509 3.0% HBWS 1.01 1.03 1.02HBSH 2,011,808 135,454 6.7% HBSH 2,004,455 136,728 6.8% HBSH 1.00 0.99 0.99HBO 7,951,944 878,764 11.1% HBO 7,881,737 876,208 11.1% HBO 1.01 1.00 0.99HBU 296,914 29,474 9.9% HBU 303,105 28,404 9.4% HBU 0.98 1.04 1.06WBO 3,320,209 291,957 8.8% WBO 3,262,427 287,742 8.8% WBO 1.02 1.01 1.00NHNW 4,884,567 499,607 10.2% NHNW 4,904,220 504,967 10.3% NHNW 1.00 0.99 0.99TOTAL 23,488,805 2,025,871 8.6% TOTAL 23,349,579 2,022,105 8.7% TOTAL 1.01 1.00 1.00

Note:(1). Unallocated trips from HBU trip process were merged to HBO purpose.(2). For WBO and NHNW purposes, trip ends instead of trip productions are listed.

(Model vs. Survey)Trip Productions by Mode Trip Productions by Mode Ratio of Productions by Mode

PurposeTotal

(Survey)

PurposeTotal

(Model)

PurposeTotal

65

Comparison of HBW Trip Attractions by Income Group

Motorized HBW Trip Attractions by Income GroupModel

HBWD HBWS Total % % %0-$14,999 96,372 33,505 129,877 3.2% 3.0% 3.0%$15,000-$34,999 358,280 125,362 483,642 12.6% 11.1% 11.0%$35,000-$74,999 1,127,111 397,418 1,524,528 35.9% 34.7% 34.6%$75,000-$149,999 1,252,418 442,501 1,694,918 37.4% 38.4% 38.5%>=$150,000 419,357 148,095 567,452 11.0% 12.8% 12.9%Total 3,253,538 1,146,880 4,400,418 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note:HBWD--- home-based work directHBWS--- home-based work strategic

SurveyModelIncome Group Census

66

Comparison of Trip Attractions by Income Group (Continued)

Motorized Trip Attractions by Purpose by Income Group (Model)Income Group HBSH HBO WBO NHNW Total0-$14,999 166,823 313,838 21,483 133,419 635,564$15,000-$34,999 276,134 852,801 115,053 293,533 1,537,520$35,000-$74,999 674,604 2,283,504 558,573 787,961 4,304,643$75,000-$149,999 532,833 2,430,947 622,601 702,409 4,288,790>=$150,000 182,662 922,399 216,340 277,537 1,598,937Total 1,833,056 6,803,490 1,534,051 2,194,858 12,365,455

Motorized Trip Attractions by Purpose by Income Group (Survey)Income Group HBSH HBO WBO NHNW Total0-$14,999 161,856 313,588 20,965 125,729 622,138$15,000-$34,999 266,836 861,858 110,509 292,680 1,531,883$35,000-$74,999 664,830 2,242,992 536,355 758,025 4,202,202$75,000-$149,999 550,900 2,426,988 597,866 720,509 4,296,262>=$150,000 189,536 935,352 207,331 285,429 1,617,647Total 1,833,958 6,780,778 1,473,026 2,182,371 12,270,132

Ratio of Attractions by Purpose by Income Group (Model vs. Survey)Income Group HBSH HBO WBO NHNW Total0-$14,999 1.03 1.00 1.02 1.06 1.02$15,000-$34,999 1.03 0.99 1.04 1.00 1.00$35,000-$74,999 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.02$75,000-$149,999 0.97 1.00 1.04 0.97 1.00>=$150,000 0.96 0.99 1.04 0.97 0.99Total 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.01 1.01

Note:For WBO and NHNW purposes, values are trip ends.

67

Regional Trip Statistics

Expected range for trips per household is 7.5-10Expected range for trips per person is 2.5-3.4

Total Per Household Per Person Motorized Per Household Per PersonModel 19,580,184 8.09 2.94 17,776,573 7.34 2.67Survey 19,504,281 8.05 2.93 17,643,117 7.29 2.65Model/Survey 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01

Regional Trips SummaryTrip ProductionsSource

Model Survey Model/Survey Model SurveyHouseholds with Retirees 3,611,461 3,468,137 1.04 5.84 5.61Households with Children and No Retirees 10,072,899 10,034,749 1.00 12.15 12.11Households without Children or Retirees 5,895,825 6,001,396 0.98 6.05 6.16Total 19,580,185 19,504,281 1.00 8.09 8.05

Household Life Cycle TripProductions Average Trips/Household

68

Trip Distribution - Average Trip Length Comparison

Observed EstimatedHBWD 31.85 33.54 1.69 5.3%HBWS 30.09 31.75 1.66 5.5%HBSH 15.91 15.84 -0.07 -0.4%HBO 15.99 15.62 -0.37 -2.3%WBO 21.87 21.71 -0.15 -0.7%NHNW 16.20 16.03 -0.17 -1.1%

Observed Estimated Observed EstimatedHBWD 31.49 33.33 13.51 14.15HBWS 29.74 31.62 12.92 12.98HBSH 15.67 15.65 5.69 5.63HBO 15.61 15.28 5.72 5.62WBO 21.00 21.14 9.66 9.63NHNW 15.89 15.81 5.93 5.58

Trip Distribution Summary

PurposeTravel Time Distance

Time and Distance Comparisons

Purpose Composite Impedance Diff Diff%

Note: impedance for each mode includes travel time and costs.

69

Trip Pattern by Auto/Total CI Ratio

HBW Trip Pattern

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80

Auto/Total CI Ratio

Trip

s

HBW_Obs HBW_Est HBW_NJT HBW_Census

HBW Trip Pattern

0.0%0.1%0.2%0.3%0.4%0.5%0.6%0.7%0.8%0.9%1.0%1.1%1.2%1.3%1.4%1.5%

1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80

Auto/Total CI Ratio

Trip

s%

HBW_Obs HBW_Est HBW_NJT HBW_Census

Non-HBW Trip Pattern

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40

Auto/Total CI Ratio

Trip

s

NHBW_Obs NHBW_Est NHBW_NJT

Non-HBW Trip Pattern

0.00%0.04%0.08%0.12%0.16%0.20%0.24%0.28%0.32%0.36%0.40%0.44%0.48%0.52%0.56%0.60%

1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40

Auto/Total CI Ratio

Trip

s%

NHBW_Obs NHBW_Est NHBW_NJT

70

Trans-Hudson Person Trips Summary

Trans-Hudson Trips Summary for NJT Controlled Region

Person TripsOriginal Survey

Adjusted Survey (1) NJRTME Model/Survey

Total 1,207,973 1,235,875 1,268,089 1.03

Orginal Survey

AECOM/NJT MODEL (2) NJRTME Model/NJT

Transit 548,086 515,079 524,020 1.02

(1) - Adjusted survey - Household survey adjusted for changes implemented as result of NJT discussions.(2) - AECOM/NJT model - Transit trips from existing NJT model

71

Mode Choice - Trans-Hudson Trips by Mode Comparison

SOV 279,630 26.3% 347,983 27.4% 486,553 35.7%HOV2 156,833 14.8% 224,253 17.7% 171,551 12.6%HOV3 56,222 5.3% 98,750 7.8% 51,574 3.8%HOV4 55,008 5.2% 73,089 5.8% 40,458 3.0%AUTO 547,695 51.5% 744,075 58.7% 750,138 55.1%Wk-Rail 44,879 4.2% 43,956 3.5% 120,179 8.8%Wk-PATH 90,202 8.5% 114,143 9.0% 107,445 7.9%Wk-Bus 107,222 10.1% 152,445 12.0% 155,361 11.4%Wk-Ferry 14,331 1.3% 8,079 0.6% 5,130 0.4%Wk-LRT 8,940 0.8% 3,057 0.2% 0 0.0%Wk-Long Ferry 158 0.0% 125 0.0% 0 0.0%Dr-Rail 126,023 11.9% 78,087 6.2% 151,142 11.1%Dr-PATH 41,466 3.9% 38,589 3.0% 17,450 1.3%Dr-Bus 64,848 6.1% 76,244 6.0% 50,693 3.7%Dr-Ferry 3,803 0.4% 7,391 0.6% 4,077 0.3%Dr-LRT 8,745 0.8% 507 0.0% 0 0.0%Dr-Long Ferry 4,463 0.4% 1,394 0.1% 0 0.0%TRANSIT 515,086 48.5% 524,018 41.3% 611,476 44.9%TOTAL 1,062,783 100.0% 1,268,089 100.0% 1,361,614 100.0%

** AECOM/NJT Trip Table

DAILY TOTALNJT Model** Integration Model SurveyMODE

Trips by Mode Comparison (Trans-Hudson Regions: 1,5,7)

One of 11 Geographic Market Segments

72

Highway Assignment - Volume-Delay Function Comparison

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75

TIM

E R

ATI

OVOLUME-DELAY FUNCTION COMPARISON

BPR

AKCELIK

HCM BPR

URS BPR+QUE

73

NJRTM-E Delay Functions

74

NJRTM-E Assignment Results

75

Regional VMT Summary

Facility Type Observed Estimated RatioFreeway 20,459,061 21,381,971 105%Expressway 2,671,680 2,552,583 96%Principal arterial divided 3,341,529 3,260,569 98%Principal arterial undivided 2,915,434 2,943,843 101%Major arterial divided 29,160 35,676 122%Major arterial undivided 2,367,306 2,478,058 105%Minor arterial 1,114,110 987,420 89%

Total 32,898,280 33,640,120 102%

Area Type Observed Estimated RatioCBD 424,528 453,185 107%Urban 4,789,400 4,967,504 104%Suburban 18,772,525 19,275,159 103%Rural 8,911,827 8,944,272 100%

Total 32,898,280 33,640,120 102%

VMT Summary

76

RMSE Summary by Volume Group

Model NJRTM FHWA>=90,000 11 11 1580,000-90,000 21 16 1670,000-80,000 17 23 1660,000-70,000 19 23 1850,000-60,000 24 26 2040,000-50,000 28 32 2130,000-40,000 26 43 2320,000-30,000 32 42 2510,000-20,000 44 65 270-10,000 88 65 40-60Total 35 50 35-40

Note:Percent RMSE from U.S. Models(Source:Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual - FHWA)Atlanta 27%Chicago 47%Dallas 43%Norfolk 42%Phoenix 37%Tampa 46%Washington 50%

RMSE Summary by Volume GroupModel v.s Desirable Percent DeviationVolume Group

77

R-Square by Facility Type

R-Squared Analysis: Estimated Volume v.s Observed CountFacility Type Observations R-SquareFreeway 427 87.5%Expressway 167 75.2%Principal Arterial Divided 215 60.3%Principal Arterial Undivided 348 73.8%Major Arterial Divided 4 NAMajor Arterial Undivided 479 37.3%Minor Arterial 454 54.9%All Roads 2,094 93.0%

FHWA recommended the regionwide R-square should be greater than 88%.Source: Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual. Feb. 1997.

78

VMT/Volume Comparison by County

Observed Estimated Ratio Observed Estimated RatioBergen 2,948,949 2,904,781 99% 4,256,279 4,122,307 97%Essex 2,402,024 2,680,549 112% 3,782,505 4,304,276 114%Hudson 1,512,702 1,641,823 109% 2,461,370 2,624,184 107%Hunterdon 1,171,362 1,137,260 97% 1,156,902 1,133,606 98%Mercer 2,679,712 2,462,962 92% 2,986,784 2,699,285 90%Middlesex 4,766,061 5,097,133 107% 5,670,767 6,221,359 110%Monmouth 3,550,741 3,448,515 97% 2,559,064 2,459,363 96%Morris 3,279,109 3,811,018 116% 3,538,268 4,100,614 116%Ocean 2,085,785 1,975,002 95% 1,367,528 1,280,241 94%Passaic 1,587,312 1,616,364 102% 2,612,437 2,757,743 106%Somerset 3,089,158 3,149,370 102% 2,376,559 2,487,349 105%Sussex 753,343 683,558 91% 626,646 577,899 92%Union 1,930,198 1,980,792 103% 3,390,464 3,433,323 101%Warren 1,188,622 1,076,122 91% 1,181,628 1,062,093 90%Total(NJTPA+MERCER) 32,945,078 33,665,249 102% 37,967,201 39,263,642 103%

VMT VolumeObserved Volume v.s Estimated Volume by Subregion

County

79

Screenline Summary

Screenline Location %With Counts Observed Estimated Ratio Truck%1 Below I-80 (From I-80&I-280 Fork to Hudson River) 27 690,240 732,330 106% 6.4%2 East of I-95 (From I-495 to I-78) 89 416,052 471,368 113% 5.0%3 East of GSP (From NJ-3 to I-78 then turn to I-95) 47 901,388 929,286 103% 7.7%4 Union<-->Middlesex (From I-280 to Goethals Bridge) 39 789,107 767,356 97% 7.5%5 Lower Middlesex(NJ-27,US-1,I-95,US-130, CR-535,CR-527) 55 275,696 278,323 101% 10.4%6 Morris Cross (From I-80 to I-287) 69 353,332 399,193 113% 7.1%7 Morris Cross (From I-80 to I-78 then to NJ-28) 39 310,926 312,909 101% 10.4%8 Upper GSP (From GSP,US-202 to I-80) 55 222,202 229,403 103% 7.9%9 Upper Middlesex(From GSP to Outerbridge Crossing) 59 659,201 676,375 103% 6.8%

10 NY<-->NJ Land Border Crossing 70 309,459 320,341 104% 9.2%11 Upper Delaware River Crossing 100 176,092 188,489 107% 13.0%12 Lower Delaware River Crossing 100 249,294 256,446 103% 6.1%13 In between NJ-18 & CR-520 (from CR-527 to Coast) 63 357,322 322,682 90% 2.9%14 Middlesex Bay Crossing (GSP+US-9+NJ-35) 100 331,112 379,070 114% 3.5%15 NY<-->NJ Hudson River Crossing 100 703,577 741,442 105% 5.2%16 NY<-->NY Hudson River Crossing (Three Bridges) 100 214,495 228,607 107% 10.4%17 Newark CBD Cordon Line 44 251,114 316,058 126% 11.2%18 Downtown Jersey City Cordon Line 28 252,325 243,586 97% 0.2%19 NJ Other<-->NJTPA+MERCER Border Crossing 53 299,344 309,956 104% 10.7%20 Middlesex<-->Somerset Border (partial,from I-78 to I-95) 45 526,844 552,360 105% 7.2%

Total 41,893,110 42,830,431 102% 6.8%

Notes: Anticipated percent deviation between the estimated and observed volumes expected to be within 5-15%.

Screenline Summary

80

Regional Performance Comparison

VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Statistics

NJTPA's 13 Counties + Mercer 146,121 22 56,811 44,991 45 30Atlanta 95,110 37 38,650 14,575 43 27Detroit 87,620 22 29,355 28,365 43 27Boston 58,285 19 21,800 16,110 45 26Kansas City 39,130 29 17,310 5,730 52 28Baltimore 43,245 29 20,775 8,915 46 28

NOTE:Source: 1999 Texas Transportation Institute Annual Mobility Study (for Regional Models other than NJTPA)

Principal Arterial VMT

(x1000)

Average Peak Period Freeway

Speed(mph)

Average Peak Period Principal Arterial Speed

(mph)

City/Region System VMT (x1000)

System VMT per Capita

Freeway VMT(x1000)

81

Unweighted Speed Comparison

MeanStand.

Dev. MeanStand.

Dev. MeanStand.

Dev. MeanStand.

Dev.Freeway 50.15 13.74 53.32 15.95 57.78 14.79 57.93 10.56Expressway 51.43 10.54 48.81 10.83 46.80 11.32 42.64 7.59Principal arterial divided 29.01 12.48 36.09 13.99 44.67 10.87 34.14 6.72Principal arterial undivided 38.56 14.05 42.52 11.69 43.79 12.92 29.13 8.47Major arterial divided 31.79 12.88 40.39 10.08 39.84 10.09 32.50 5.22Major arterial undivided 21.91 11.66 32.39 13.58 37.59 13.54 26.10 7.28Minor arterial 21.26 9.98 28.24 9.81 30.66 9.78 19.86 8.31Collector/Local 32.20 5.21 32.63 2.60 16.97 6.30 19.70 5.74Average 34.57 16.70 43.41 15.96 37.53 14.64 28.00 15.45Freeway 57.95 8.77 62.04 8.17 64.19 11.03 60.19 5.81Expressway 48.33 9.39 53.46 5.63 52.83 5.86 44.97 3.34Principal arterial divided 34.96 9.38 40.45 10.37 48.70 8.10 35.19 5.65Principal arterial undivided 39.27 12.24 46.13 9.85 46.46 10.91 30.42 7.61Major arterial divided 27.48 11.99 41.87 9.24 43.08 8.18 32.98 5.00Major arterial undivided 24.24 13.13 36.15 12.32 40.45 10.80 27.07 6.52Minor arterial 23.10 11.20 30.07 8.58 32.18 8.25 21.37 7.13Collector/Local 33.94 4.93 32.69 2.55 17.85 5.53 19.97 5.61Average 36.54 17.56 48.47 14.65 40.33 13.90 29.40 14.91Freeway 51.13 10.74 45.49 19.38 54.75 16.99 58.11 10.29Expressway 41.97 9.00 47.77 12.45 44.55 11.92 43.81 5.17Principal arterial divided 25.68 12.82 35.22 14.58 43.29 11.71 30.76 9.32Principal arterial undivided 31.04 13.55 41.47 12.43 42.62 13.85 27.51 9.55Major arterial divided 30.75 12.99 38.90 11.89 37.19 13.93 31.91 5.06Major arterial undivided 25.75 12.96 30.31 15.72 36.09 14.60 25.11 7.52Minor arterial 20.75 9.70 26.05 12.37 29.51 10.89 18.63 8.85Collector/Local 30.74 4.14 32.69 2.55 15.80 7.24 19.36 5.91Average 33.36 16.32 39.79 16.98 36.04 15.32 26.96 15.90

AM

Speed Comparison by Period by Facility TypeSummer Speed

(PPSUITE)

MD

Estimated Speed (All Links)

PM

Observed Speed (All Runs)

Estimated Speed (All Runs)Period Facility Type

82

Toll Road Performance

NJTPK Summary

Heavy Total %Heavy Heavy Total %HeavyTotal in NJTPA Area 133,006 1,262,943 10.5% 121,708 1,295,980 9.4%

GSP Summary

Heavy Total %Heavy Heavy Total %HeavyPascack Valley NA 78,010 NA NA 69,095 NA

Bergen NA 123,900 NA NA 122,552 NAEssex NA 144,900 NA NA 140,635 NAUnion NA 194,300 NA NA 199,096 NA

Raritan River NA 232,000 NA NA 262,000 NAAsbury 1,007 146,956 0.7% 607 131,250 0.5%

Toms River 1,566 85,352 1.8% 2,100 77,341 2.7%Barnegat 1,243 62,395 2.0% 1,724 52,363 3.3%

New Gretna 894 42,283 2.1% 1,896 43,083 4.4%TOTAL 4,710 1,032,086 1.4% 6,328 1,028,320 2.1%

Both Directions Both Directions

Interchanges2000 Count (One Way) Model (Avg. of Both Directions)

Toll Plaza

2000 Count 2000 Model

Road BEGIN END Count Volume Ratio Obs. VMT Est. VMT RatioNJTPK Interchange 7 G.S.P. (Interchange 11) 998,254 929,444 0.93 1,867,522 1,708,379 0.91NJTPK G.S.P. (Interchange 11) George Washington Bridge 2,481,945 2,633,987 1.06 2,397,778 2,562,865 1.07G.S.P. Burlington&Ocean Border NJTPK 1,555,952 1,532,969 0.99 2,365,827 2,252,979 0.95G.S.P. US-22 I-87 (NYS) 1,171,144 1,117,394 0.95 730,389 688,746 0.94TOTAL 6,207,295 6,213,793 1.00 7,361,516 7,212,969 0.98

Toll Road Volumes Comparison

83

Trans-Hudson Traffic Comparison

Direction Auto Heavy Total Auto Heavy TotalEB 30,501 3,943 34,444 32,910 3,788 36,698WB 30,501 3,943 34,444 33,492 3,990 37,482EB 9,009 91 9,100 7,537 267 7,804WB 9,009 91 9,100 7,453 395 7,848EB 61,693 6,767 68,460 65,105 7,177 72,282WB 56,031 6,146 62,177 58,432 8,062 66,493EB 143,216 10,245 153,461 158,015 11,917 169,933WB 153,129 10,959 164,088 146,518 10,880 157,399EB 61,995 521 62,516 67,004 0 67,004WB 66,167 560 66,727 64,757 0 64,757EB 48,730 756 49,486 43,249 0 43,249WB 50,846 789 51,635 54,370 0 54,370EB 100,856 7,282 108,138 109,973 5,463 115,435WB 92,054 6,646 98,700 95,526 4,487 100,013EB 456,000 29,605 485,605 483,793 28,612 512,405WB 457,737 29,134 486,871 460,548 27,814 488,362

EB 35,227 2,692 37,919 35,362 5,730 41,092WB 32,413 2,476 34,889 27,387 4,248 31,635EB 37,548 1,929 39,477 38,868 2,068 40,936WB 32,279 1,657 33,936 36,080 2,342 38,422SB 9,696 613 10,309 16,916 451 17,367NB 7,716 487 8,203 14,589 691 15,280

EB/NB 80,491 5,108 85,599 88,819 8,488 97,307WB/SB 74,388 4,746 79,134 80,383 7,041 87,424 Total

Outerbridge Crossing

Bayonne Bridge

Newburgh-Beacon Bridge

Bear Mountain Bridge

Tappan Zee Bridge

Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

Total

Goethals Bridge

Holland Tunnel

Trans-Hudson Vehicular Traffic by Type

Model

George Washington Bridge

Lincoln Tunnel

CountLOCATION

84

Convergence Performance

85

Transit Demand

Transit Ridership SummaryRail/Ferry Services Observed Estimated Diff % DiffMain/Bergen/Port Jervis Line 22,380 26,192 3,812 17.0%Pascack Valley Line 7,018 3,352 -3,666 -52.2%Boonton Line 9,824 14,620 4,796 48.8%Morris/Essex Line 40,250 30,904 -9,346 -23.2%Raritan Valley Line 18,070 16,556 -1,514 -8.4%North Jersey Coastline/Northeast Corridor Line 106,052 94,154 -11,898 -11.2%Metro North Trips from West of Hudson Locations 5,248 3,224 -2,024 -38.6%Total Rail Service 208,842 189,002 -19,840 -9.5%PATH 500,532 519,082 18,550 3.7%Newark City Subway Line 36,232 30,385 -5,847 -16.1%Hudson-Bergen LRT 22,000 31,838 17,580 123.3%NJ Ferry Service 23,097 14,838 -8,259 -35.8%Total 790,703 785,145 -5,558 -0.7%

86

Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity Trials– Cost Trials

• NJ Turnpike 100% Toll Increase • Transit System – 30% Fare Increase

– New Transit Facility• Secaucus Transfer Station• Best toll route

87

Sensitivity Analysis Results

NJ Turnpike Toll Increase– Tolls Increased 100%

• Elasticity Range from TCRP Report 95 – (-.10 to -.34)• Observed Turnpike Elasticity from 1991 increase - (-.104)• NJRTM-E Estimated Elasticity – (-.159)

88


NJ Transit Fare Increase– Transit Fares increased 30% systemwide– TCRP Estimates provide a wide range for bus mode– Commuter Type Services exhibit reasonable results– Local Bus elasticity may reflect captive patrons

–

Elasticity Values

TCRP Report 95 NJRTM‐E

Mode Range Value

Commuter Rail ‐0.18 to ‐0.22 ‐0.22

Long Haul Bus ‐0.20 to ‐0.40 ‐0.29

Local Bus ‐0.20 to ‐0.40 ‐0.09

89


New Transit Facility - Secaucus Station – Observed Ridership (2004) – 11,000– Estimated Ridership (2000 Model) – 8,400– Ridership by Access Mode is generally reasonable

Secaucus Junction Ridership Summary

Estimated Observed1

RailMain/Port Jervis/Bergen Lines 4,112 49% 65%Pascack Valley Line 2,084 25% 11%Total Rail 6,196 74% 76%Bus 2,195 26% 24%Total Ridership 8,391 100% 100%

Note:1 Obtained from "September Secaucus Junction Ridership" Technical Memorandum from NJ Transit (October 3, 2007)

Estimated Average Weekday RidershipMode % Share

90

Discussion- Possible Future Enhancements to the NJRTM-E

NetworkDemographicProcessData Management

91

Potential Enhancements

Near Term Refinements– Minor Updates to Data / Procedures– Should Not Interfere with On-Going Projects / Studies

Longer Term Enhancements– Significant Revisions to the Existing Components– Addition of new Procedures / Components– Coordination Required

92

Near Term Refinements

Improve Calibration in Selected Corridors– Peak Period Turnpike Speeds north of Interchange 11– Improvement to Bus Speed Estimation– Improvements to Selected Rail Lines

Full Testing of Diagnostic ReportsQueuing Function Improvements– Contingent on Network Data

Transit Node Integration

93

Near Term Enhancements

Zone Independent Routines – Largely Complete – Transit Skims & Mode Choice

Implement Cube ClusterDevelop Life Cycle SubmodelImplement Cube ReportsDevelop Additional Support Applications

94

Near Term Enhancements

Year 2005 CalibrationAdditional Sensitivity Testing Geocoding Rail Stations & Alignments

95

Long Term Enhancements

Update Transit Path-Building – Trnbuild to Public Transport (PT)

Integration with NJTPA Land Use RoutineUnified Mode Choice ProcessIntersection Modeling – Junction ProcessCube Avenue Assignment Processing

96

Caveats

• The NJRTM-E Model Is A Tool– Based on Average Human Behavioral Characteristics and

Responses and the Transport System’s Characteristics– Remember, the AVERAGE family has 2.5 kids (none do)– For Every Average (mean), there is a standard deviation– The NJRTM-E is Built Upon the Most Recent AVAILABLE Data

(some data are dated and some data are not available locally)

• Detailed Studies (FTA New Starts, Corridor Studies, Impact Assessment, etc) Should ALWAYS review the Model Data, Assumptions and Results and TAILOR the Tool to Fit the Conditions/Needs of the Study

• The NJRTM-E is now being reviewed by NJ Transit and has not yet been approved for use with project-level planning studies in the high-density urbanized areas.

97

Access to Documentation

• Users Guide is now on the NJTPA Website which accessed via the following link:http://www.njtpa.org/DataMap/Perf/Model/default.aspx

• Model Development Report will be posted on the website when it is finalized.

98

Now it is Time for Q&A

north jersey regional transportation model- enhanced

Documents